Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 10:58:35 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
Here is promiced URL: http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015266,00.html Please notice that they cooperate with Red Hat this time, and their explanation of bad Linux performance is differs from yours :-) And I will not more participate in the religious OS war... Eugene On December 06, 1999 at 09:07:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 06, 1999 at 00:53:03, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 21:11:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>[deleted] >> >>>That isn't exactly true. Microsoft has _definitely_ noticed it. They noticed >>>it enough to run a SMP test with a terribly mis-configured linux box, so that >>>they could show how much better NT performs as a file server, and a http >>>server, and so forth. :) I can supply some _real_ data for anyone that is >>>interested... >> >>Not exactly true. MS *paid* for a test, and company who tested was not able to >>configure Linux properly (they asked for help in a newsgroup and Red Hat, but >>got no answer; people at Red Hat after that asked "why you asked for help in a >>technical department, and not in marketing?"). >> > > >A couple of issues. They asked in a newsgroup. And within 12 hours were >running the test. They picked just about the _only_ SCSI controller that >didn't work with SMP. Several said "use the buslogic bt958 controller, we >_know_ it works in SMP perfectly." They used something else, typical. > > > > > >>PC Magazine labs repeated the test on a properly configured Linux (they called a >>lot of Linux people for help during configuring - I doubt average business will >>be get such a help; experience of the first company is more common, IMHO). >>Results were much better for a Linux this time, but still worse than NT. If I >>remember correctly, part of the problem was that SMP support in Linux kernel was >>in (late) beta, part was lack of drivers for the latest SCSI controllers, part >>was some extra locks on Apache (or Zeus?), limiting its scalability. Maybe those >>problems are already fixed, but IMHO Linux is still not scalable enough when you >>are talking about thousands of simutaneous clients (I worked at MS SQL Server >>group for several years, and I believe I understand those issues). > > > > >The problem was they misconfigured apache. Each request spawned a new thread, >with _no_ throttling of any kind. Which totally swamped the machine. I can >offer them access to an SMP box that will run with any NT benchmark they want >to use... We did quite a bit of benchmarking NT vs Linux for NFS servers, >httpd stuff (web), and so forth. Linux came out on top by a measurable amount. > > > > >> >>I have the exact URL in my office; if there is interest I'll post it tomorrow, >>and this will be my last message in that off-topic thread. >> >>Eugene
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.